Mike, how true! Notice the Mormon man becomes a God while Jesus lowers Himself, becomes a man, and enters His own creation to save us.

TeeJay

Hey TeeJay I like your logic. Here is one thing you probably know, but may want to remember; God says in the Bible, we are all created in His image. Now God is omnipotent (all knowing) and therefore we can "think" we are too. I don't think I am god (or all knowing) No matter how logical you or I can be our fellow humans can create the idea that what we say is utter nonsense. Guess we can't out create a fellow creator! lol . I kinda try to remember this when I am reasoning with a human. . Since we are all equals one can never win a "battle" with an equal against there will.

"Professing themselves to be wise they became fools...for even as they did not want to retain God in their knowledge...".

The Bible does say, "Come let us reason together says the Eternal'. But then one would have to be reasonable to be reasoned with. lol

You answered, “Physics and chemistry.”Thank you for this answer. Your answer is proof positive of the ultimate result of atheistism—foolish irrationalism.

I am betwixt myself and I am at a loss as to how to respond to this and not get kicked off this site. God, in Proverb 26:4, tells me that if I answer a fool according to his folly, I will be just like him. But then I read the next verse, and God says I have to answer you: “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes” (Prov. 26:5).

At first reading, one can conclude that God is contradicting Himself between verses 4 and 5. But what God is saying in verse 4 is that I am not to embrace the folly of the unbeliever lest I be like him. In verse 5, God wants me to show where your folly would lead if your argument were true (“lest you be wise in your own eyes”).

So I will accept your answer hypothetically to show, for the sake of argument, where it would lead if it were true. So, for the sake of argument, let’s see what “physics and chemistry” will give us.

1. You’ve committed the Fallacy of Reification. This fallacy is committed when one attributes concrete characteristics to something that is abstract. For example, “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.” Here, nature is an abstraction and not a person that can be fooled. Reification is perfectly acceptable in poetry or a figure of speech, but must never be used in a logical argument as you do here. The concepts of physics and chemistry can’t reason or will to do anything.

2. Your posit that chemical reactions (which are physical) tell your mind (which is not physical) what to think is absurd. How in the world did you come up with this answer? Perhaps you’re correct! Your posit had to be an accident of nature. It could not have come from a reasoning, intelligent mind (facetiousness of course).

3. As Haldane said, “If thinking were the result of random chemical reactions, then we could not know that anything was true—not even that there were chemicals in our brains [paraphrased].”

5. You live in a random chance worldview where everything is an accident of nature, and all that exists is matter and energy. Random matter and energy can’t give you the non-physical rational thought, morality, laws of nature (uniformity), etc. Matter and energy can’t give you what they do not have to give.

Please, Miles, can you explain to this old man how you came to this place in your existence where you are comfortable defending this epitome of irrationality? You could not have arrived at this position by yourself. You had to have had help from someone. Who, a college professor perhaps?

Thank you for this answer. Your answer is proof positive of the ultimate result of atheistism—foolish irrationalism.

I am betwixt myself and I am at a loss as to how to respond to this and not get kicked off this site. God, in Proverb 26:4, tells me that if I answer a fool according to his folly, I will be just like him. But then I read the next verse, and God says I have to answer you: “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes” (Prov. 26:5).

At first reading, one can conclude that God is contradicting Himself between verses 4 and 5. But what God is saying in verse 4 is that I am not to embrace the folly of the unbeliever lest I be like him. In verse 5, God wants me to show where your folly would lead if your argument were true (“lest you be wise in your own eyes”).

So I will accept your answer hypothetically to show, for the sake of argument, where it would lead if it were true. So, for the sake of argument, let’s see what “physics and chemistry” will give us.

1. You’ve committed the Fallacy of Reification. This fallacy is committed when one attributes concrete characteristics to something that is abstract. For example, “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.” Here, nature is an abstraction and not a person that can be fooled. Reification is perfectly acceptable in poetry or a figure of speech, but must never be used in a logical argument as you do here. The concepts of physics and chemistry can’t reason or will to do anything.

2. Your posit that chemical reactions (which are physical) tell your mind (which is not physical) what to think is absurd. How in the world did you come up with this answer? Perhaps you’re correct! Your posit had to be an accident of nature. It could not have come from a reasoning, intelligent mind (facetiousness of course).

3. As Haldane said, “If thinking were the result of random chemical reactions, then we could not know that anything was true—not even that there were chemicals in our brains [paraphrased].”

5. You live in a random chance worldview where everything is an accident of nature, and all that exists is matter and energy. Random matter and energy can’t give you the non-physical rational thought, morality, laws of nature (uniformity), etc. Matter and energy can’t give you what they do not have to give.

Please, Miles, can you explain to this old man how you came to this place in your existence where you are comfortable defending this epitome of irrationality? You could not have arrived at this position by yourself. You had to have had help from someone. Who, a college professor perhaps?

TeeJay

TeeJay In the Bible the attitude you are attempting to deal with is called, 'The Mark of the beast!"
Amen Bro

Mike, it pains me to deal with this. I know he's extremely intelligent just from dialoging with him. But this is an excellent example of the irrationality of atheistm At this point, I can only pray for Miles, and I will.

My wife and I have very close friends who are strong Christians who sent both sons off to college. They both worked hard, did without to pay for their schooling. Four years later, both came home as atheists. I blame this on our churches. We do not teach Christian apologetics to our young people. We tell to believe but not why to believe. Then we send them off to colleges for the atheist professors to slice and dice them. It's like sending a soldier into battle unarmed.

I was called by God as a young lad at around 12 years of age. My folks were marginal Christians. As a young man, I experience a couple of miracles that defied human explanation.

When I was a teen ager the Vietnam war was waging. I could not figure out how I as a Christian could go kill beings made by God. "In as much as you have done it unto the least of these..you have done it unto me." I worried about it all through High School.

Finally, I was accepted at a small State college in Nebraska. I got a college deferment. I had biology and evolution was taught, but I couldn't buy it! I just believed God could not lie and He was our Creator. Nor did He need evolution. I was spared going to Vietnam for which I am so grateful.

As a counselor in my Church and as a teacher in a public school, I have seen the effects of what war has done to our youg people. I coucilled one of our Christian parents who wanted to send his son into the military ro turn him into a man. I told the boys father, "Don't do it!" "Neither shall they learn war anymore!" The kid had been a member of our church for years and believed in Christ and His way! It was only six weeks before the young boy came home from the military "destroyed" and went awol.

PSTD is a real problem and the suicide rate among our returning vets is most a alarming sign of what happens when our young people are taught to kill. Love and hate are not compatible.

I have also sat across from young people that have come home from college as atheists and agree with what you said about teaching Christian apologetics. But even my secular studens are amazingly inept at critical thinking. It was so bad that I conceptualised a simple definition of reasoning--given a cause what will be the most likely effect and given an effect what was the most likely cause?

I really enjoy reading your posts. The logic you use is pristine. It is so enjoyable to see how you cut through deception.

We are dealig with a bunch of Jobs that come here as atheists-- self righteiouas as can be! I am afraid the only thing that will break the back of their selfrighteous attitude is tribulation-- or as I often say, a significant emotional experience--psychological pain!!

So I will accept your answer hypothetically to show, for the sake of argument, where it would lead if it were true. So, for the sake of argument, let’s see what “physics and chemistry” will give us.

1. You’ve committed the Fallacy of Reification. This fallacy is committed when one attributes concrete characteristics to something that is abstract. For example, “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.” Here, nature is an abstraction and not a person that can be fooled. Reification is perfectly acceptable in poetry or a figure of speech, but must never be used in a logical argument as you do here. The concepts of physics and chemistry can’t reason or will to do anything.

I didn't interpret your question as asking for something that was giving actual orders to the brain. There's no entity that literally 'tells' the brain what to do if that's really what you meant. I was reading that question as a request for what causes the brain to produce the thoughts it does, which would be the chemical and physical properties of the brain and it's inputs.

2. Your posit that chemical reactions (which are physical) tell your mind (which is not physical) what to think is absurd. How in the world did you come up with this answer? Perhaps you’re correct! Your posit had to be an accident of nature. It could not have come from a reasoning, intelligent mind (facetiousness of course).

3. As Haldane said, “If thinking were the result of random chemical reactions, then we could not know that anything was true—not even that there were chemicals in our brains [paraphrased].”As I mentioned before, I'm not clear on this objection. Whether or not it's provable that our thoughts are true is a separate issue from whether or not our thoughts are the result of chemical reactions. If our thoughts were the result of chemical reactions and this fact were unprovable, that would not mean that our thoughts were not the result of chemical reactions. I'd argue that having thoughts which accurately reflect reality is a survival benefit and that therefore our continued survival is evidence, not necessarily proof, that our thoughts are generally accurate, whereby I mean that either they reflect reality or have errors which can be ignored in most cases (optical illusions are examples where these errors are made evident).

Everything is an example of information from something physical. Position, orientation, magnetic charge, etc. are all forms of information because they all make up the state of a system. I'm currently observing the position of a pen on my desk, that is physical information. The physical process of thinking can be partially observed using MRI machines, it's not currently possible to fully map each neurons activity in the brain which would be required for a complete observation of a thought. Experiencing someone elses thought can't be done with current technology since a thought involves the sequence of neural activity in a persons brain and each person has different wiring in their brain.Language, math, logic, morality are all thoughts or systems developed by us, not separate entities.

5. You live in a random chance worldview where everything is an accident of nature, and all that exists is matter and energy. Random matter and energy can’t give you the non-physical rational thought, morality, laws of nature (uniformity), etc. Matter and energy can’t give you what they do not have to give.

I don't think matter and energy 'gives' anything. I think matter and energy arrange in configurations that have certain characteristics which different configurations may lack. Some configurations of protons, neutron, and electrons are water, some are stone, some make copies of themselves. Each of these configurations has different characteristics but they aren't 'giving' anything to anything.

Please, Miles, can you explain to this old man how you came to this place in your existence where you are comfortable defending this epitome of irrationality? You could not have arrived at this position by yourself. You had to have had help from someone. Who, a college professor perhaps?

I don't think I've presented anything as irrational as you suggest. I've never been a believer. Growing up it was a bit shocking when I realized just how common it was for other people to believe in god. I still find myself surprised occasionally when I come across something that re-emphasizes that people really do think god is real and that it's not just a discussion about a fictional character to them.

Mike, I must confess that I'm taken aback a bit by your pacificism worldview. Of course to discuss this topic at length, you would have to start a separate thread. I contend that pacificism can't be defended Biblically. I do appreciate you favorable comments about me though.

Mike, I must confess that I'm taken aback a bit by your pacificism worldview. Of course to discuss this topic at length, you would have to start a separate thread. I contend that pacificism can't be defended Biblically. I do appreciate you favorable comments about me though.

God bless, TeeJay

I would disagree. I do not have a pasifist worldview. I have a Christian worldview. "if My kingdom were of this world then would my servants fight." Many of Christ's followers were upset because christ did not overthrow Rom _He could have called ten thousand angels...". If you wish start a thread.I am game. Anyway ours is a volunteer army and there are plenty of people that volunteer. they do not need our Christian raised children.All the bestMiike

As Christians, we believe that the bible is the word of God. We have no doubts of this, we believe it 100%.

My questions to the atheists and agnostics would be:

Why don't you believe the bible?

Have you read it?

Do you know its history? (i.e. written over a 1500 year time span)

What was the purpose of the men who wrote the bible?

Do you acknowledge or deny the fact that there are 100s of 1000s of prophecies in the bible, many which have come to true with great accuracy?

I suppose I could go on and on with questions, but I guess this will do for a start. Look forward to seeing your responses.

Hi there,Here are my answers:

1. Lots of reasons, but to rattle off a few: There are parts in it that as far as I'm concerned are demonstrably false, the depiction of god in the bible seems to me incongruent with the biblical claim that he is omnipotent, benevolent and omniscient. I don't find that it makes a convincing case as far as being an accurate description of historical events.2. I've read some parts of the bible.3. I'm familiar with some of its history.4. I can only speculate on the intentions of those who wrote it, but I don't really know.5. Can't say that I've ever come across a convincing claim of a prophecy.

1. Lots of reasons, but to rattle off a few: There are parts in it that as far as I'm concerned are demonstrably false, the depiction of god in the bible seems to me incongruent with the biblical claim that he is omnipotent, benevolent and omniscient. I don't find that it makes a convincing case as far as being an accurate description of historical events.

drwho,

The Bible does not depict God as omnipotent, benevolent, and omniscient (and I assume you forgot to include omnipresent?). Rather, it is confused Christians who depict Him this way.

Dictionary definition of “benevolent.” Expressing good will or kindly feelings. God “rewards those who diligently seek Him.” He is heard only by those “with ears to hear and eyes to see.” He is a just God who does not show benevolence to the wicked.

Omnipresent: Rather than say God is everywhere, it is more correct to say that God is everywhere He wants to be. The Bible says that God will “cast sinners out of His presence.” He could not do this if He were everywhere. He is not eternally in the Lake of Fire. He does not have to be in the backroom of a g*y bar observing the filthy behavior there. He can turn His back on it and not look. Saying that God is everywhere makes Him a prisoner who can’t do otherwise.

Omnipotent: This word means that God has ALL POWER. But there are many things that God can’t do. He can’t make you love Him, for love must be given freely. He can’t attempt to draw a square circle and remain logical. He can’t lie and remain honest. He can’t break His promise and remain trustworthy.

Omniscient: Can God know everything. No! God can know everything knowable that He wants to know. He does not know the name of my great-great-great granddaughter. She does not yet exist. God can’t know a person who does not exist. He can’t give us freedom to choose to love or hate Him and then know in advance if we will love or hate Him. This is not only illogical; it is impossible. Again, God can’t know the unknowable.

I apologize to you, drwho, for all the confused Christians who gave you this excuse to reject your Creator God. I write the above to take away that excuse.

2. I've read some parts of the bible.

Reading parts of the Bible will not help you. First I recommend that you get the big picture and then study the details. I can recommend a book for you to do this. Studying parts of the Bible is like staring at a piece of a jig-saw puzzle instead of looking at the picture on the box. Since your eternal salvation or damnation is at stake, it would behoove you to look more closely at what you’re rejecting or accepting.

3. I'm familiar with some of its history.

Consider this letter I wrote to a Mormon friend:

Let’s compare the historicity of the Bible, which was written by about 40 men over a 1500 year period in several languages on a few continents, with the Book of Mormon written by Joseph Smith in 1830. Though the Bible tells of ancient events, historians and archeologists have independently verified the existence of over 100 people in the Bible such as Kings David, Jeroboam, Jehoiachin, Ahab, Omri, Jehu, and Jotham to the Assyrian Kings Shalmaneser, Pul, and Tigathpileser etc. Although most people have never heard of these people, historians and archeologists have found evidence of their existence apart from the Bible. Most archeologists are atheists whose Holy Grail is disproving the Bible. Yet, I find it ironic that archeologists in the Middle East carry a Bible to guide their search for lost ancient cities. Many cities mentioned in the Bible have been unearthed by these people using the Bible. Additionally, the written history in the Bible has been proven by parallel writings of ancient Roman and Greek historians.

How many unique characters mentioned in the Book of Mormon have been subsequently identified by archeologists and historians in North and South America? Zero! None! Not one! The Mormon Church claims that native peoples in the Americas are descendants of native Jews who crossed over the Atlantic Ocean in 600 B.C. Of all the cities that the Book of Mormon says that these Jews built, not one has been found by archeologists.

Every coin mentioned in the Bible has been unearthed, and, for the right sum of money, you can have your own Biblical coin collection. Guess how many coins mentioned in the Book of Mormon have been found? Zero! None! Not one!

Why did God give His inspired word, the Bible, as a history book? Why not give it as a theological discourse? He gave it as history book so that men would have a foundation upon which to judge the spiritual message of the Bible. A pure spiritual message is more difficult to evaluate if it exists in a vacuum. For example Mormons believe and teach, “As we are, God once was. And as God is we may become.” Conclusion: Any good Mormon can become God, because God once was a man just like us and He attained Godhood. So the Mormon Church does not teach one God, but a multitude of Gods. Each Mormon can become his own Jehovah with his own flock worshiping him. The God of the Bible was once like us, a sinful man. But being a good Mormon he became god and that’s why we worship him. Blasphemy!

Now compare that wildly polytheistic teaching to the monotheism of the Bible where there is only one Triune God and all worship should go to Him alone. Since the Jewish Bible has a tremendous amount of historical material, there is so much corroboration for it written into the history of the world—sediments from the Flood, rise and fall of empires, wars, executions. God has given us a foundation to evaluate His spiritual message. If the history is true, then perhaps the story is true. If the history has absolutely no foundation in fact and is a lie and the product of Joseph Smith’s fertile imagination, then why should we have any faith in its spiritual message?

4. I can only speculate on the intentions of those who wrote it, but I don't really know.Before you can intelligently “speculate” on the intentions of the writers when you read and study it. Otherwise, you are dismissing the truth or falsities of God’s word before you start your quest. A logical and truthful man should never do this.

5. Can't say that I've ever come across a convincing claim of a prophecy.

I can give you many, but you would not accept any of them. Your atheist worldview will not allow you to accept any as being true. As an example, I will present you with the same conundrum I gave to my former opponent. I predict you will do illogical contortions to explain away a simple truth:

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy or matter can’t be created.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the useable energy now in existence is ever becoming non-useable.

So, if the First Law shows that the universe could not have created itself from nothing. The Second Law says that the universe could not have always been here.So, if the universe could not have created itself from nothing and it couldn’t have always been here, then it had to have been created by Someone outside and prior to the universe coming into existence. Absent an eternal Creator, do you have an explanation for it’s existence?

Thanks for taking the time to write this reply, Teejay.
I have some questions in response to your answers. I'll try to keep my comments concise.

1.
If we're working under your explanation of omniscience and omnipotence, then you can scratch those off from my reasons.
But why do you think that some christians claim that god can do anything and knows everything? Are there verses in the bible that allude to god as being all-knowing or capable of anything? Are there verses that might be interpreted by some to mean this? If so, can you point them out? I'd be interested in knowing why different people make different claims about this.
(Note: I still have objections with respect to describing god as benevolent -- even if I use the definition(s) you provide.)

2.
I've read enough of it to convince me that it has many factual inaccuracies. In addition, after years of speaking with christians on this issue, I still cannot say that I have a reason to regard its claims regarding god as being true.
The consequence of being wrong about this, as you've pointed out, is worse than anything imaginable. Clearly, my lack of concern for this scenario unfolding should give some indication regarding the level of confidence I have about my position as a non-believer. Therefore, I would need to be convinced that there is at least a possibility of the bible being true in order to invest enough time to read it in its entirety. Although, I appreciate your concern for my well-being after death and I appreciate your advice.

3
I'm not sure how to respond to your response to my response to question #3 -- I don't believe in Mormonism either.

4.
That's why I didn't and said that "I don't know."

5.
In order to not be accused of contorting the truth, I won't start off by listing off my issues with what you have said. Instead, I'd like to ask you some questions regarding #5 to get a better understanding of what you're saying.
First, can you direct me to where you're getting your information regarding what the first and second laws of thermodynamics state? I remember them being different when I learned about them in school.

It wouldn't be a rock creating itself, it would be a rock being created from a vacuum in accordance to the rules of physics. Given that we can detect the effects of virtual particles and can't detect god I'd say god is less plausible.

Miles,

I decided it only fair that I answer your long post with my long post and it seems that our posts are getting longer and longer. I enjoyed our dialogue, but this old man is getting tired. I am going to have to ask to end this, as I don’t think there is any point to continuing. I am going to have to let you go to Hell, since that it where you seem to be determined to go.

I’m having some trouble posting this, so I will post it in two parts:

Part I.

Definition of a vacuum: “1. A space entirely devoid of matter. 2. An enclosed space from which matter, esp. air, has been removed. 3. A space not filled or occupied; emptiness, void.” (Random House Webster’s College Dictionary). So, if a vacuum is entirely devoid of matter, then you have nothing creating something. Now I will grant you that matter will fill a vacuum if permitted to do so (i.e., break a light bulb), but the vacuum does not create the matter that is already here. If what you’re saying is true, then the First Law of Thermodynamics is false. Last I read, no one has ever seen a violation of the first two laws of thermodynamics.

Question: What law of physics posits that a vacuum (nothing) creates something and violates the First Law?

For you, detecting the effects of virtual particles (matter) is proof enough for you to reject your Creator.Me thinks that you do not want to know and accept truth. If God did not exist, you would not exist, matter would not exist, and there would be no “effects” of anything. If you gave this answer to Paul’s dilemma in Acts 1:18-20, Paul would rightly label you a fool (Acts 1:22).

I have to question whether thinking an offer isn't real is the same as rejecting it, but your concern is duly noted.

Thinking is not physical. Thinking gives you the ability to KNOW the offer is real. I have to keep reminding you, Miles, that you live in a materialistic worldview that can’t be justified. In order to reject your Creator God, you have to use His immaterial gifts of thought and knowing to reject Him. “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen [even “particles detected” by you, Miles], being understood by the things that are made… so that they [you Miles] are without excuse (Acts 1:20). Rather than using the effects of particles as proof of a Creator God, you deem this reason to reject Him.

No, I don't think that rational thought is something that doesn't come from matter. If you'll permit an extreme oversimplification, reason in the human brain would be similar to Boolean logic which can be implemented in physical processes such as computers. I'm not convinced that the perception of knowing is produced by something non-physical. This is related to the hard problem of consciousness which we admittedly don't know how to answer, but not having an answer is not justification for picking a supernatural answer without evidence.

The mathematics of logic was developed by the rational, thinking mind of English mathematician George Boole. Its rules govern logical functions (true/false)—which are not physical. Boolean logic concept did not come from matter. While the computer chip is physical, the information programmed into it must come from a thinking mind.

But now you have a much more serious dilemma: The words AND, OR, NOT, NAND, NOR, XOR, AND XNOR used in Boolean logic are language—which is not physical. Now you must somehow bridge Einstein’s Gap, which thus far no one has been able to bridge. Los Alamos scientist John Baumgartner writes on Einstein’s Gulf: “If something as real as linguistic information has existence independent of matter and energy, from causal considerations it is not unreasonable to suspect an Entity [like God] capable of originating linguistic information also is ultimately non-material [i.e. spiritual] in its essential nature. An immediate conclusion of these observations concerning linguistic information [the existence of ideas, knowledge, logic, reason, law] is that materialism, which has long been the dominant philosophical perspective in scientific circles, with its foundational proposition that there is no non-material reality, is simply and plainly false. It is amazing that its falsification is so trivial.”

I guess you can relate this to consciousness and admit that you can’t answer it in your atheistic/materialistic worldview. But in my worldview it is not unanswerable. While rational thought and consciousness can’t come from matter, they can come from a Creator God Who possesses these attributes. I’m not a computer geek, but I guess you can use Boolean logic to program a computer to play chess. But will you ever be able to get the computer to KNOW it is playing chess? Not in God’s lifetime.

I have to admit I don't understand this argument or the problem it poses for naturalism. We know that our brains don't produce correct ideas in many cases, optical illusions are examples of these failures. However if our brains always produced incorrect beliefs like thinking that speeding buses are safe to hug then we'd die out rather quickly. Our continued existence is evidence that our brains produce enough correct ideas or ideas that are functionally equivalent to correct that we can generally act as if they are correct. I'm simply not getting why brains being governed by physics means brains don't work. Computers are governed by physics and they are perfectly capable of generating correct solutions to problems.

If thinking was a physical process, how could you possibly KNOW that what you see is an optical illusion? In your physical worldview, the very concept of an optical illusion could not exist. One would have to use the immaterial laws of logic to determine if the illusion was true or false. And, yes, a computer using a physical process can give you the correct answer to two plus two. But will the computer ever KNOW that it is TRUE that the answer is four?

I must point out that your reasoning is circular. My theistic argument is that the brain is a physical organ that can’t be the reason for your ability to think and reason because thinking is not physical. Then you use “continued existence” as evidence that our brains produce rational thought. You are assuming that which you have to first prove—that your physical brain, by itself, can reason. Matter is lifeless and reasonless; thus, it is impossible for matter (or energy) to give you what it does not have to give. An analogy: If you wanted to borrow a lawn mower, and you asked your neighbors to loan you one. Wouldn’t you have to find a neighbor who actually possessed one before your could borrow a lawn mower? Realize that when you consider this analogy, you have to use God’s gifts of logic and reason. You, as an atheist/materialist can’t even reject God without using His attributes.

That's not a test for something being non-physical.

Why isn’t it a test? If the information in your computer were physical, should not the computer weigh less? Sounds logical to me? What kind of car do you drive? I would be willing to bet my ranch, my truck, my tractor, and my cows against your car that the computer would weigh the same.

You can change physical properties like size, shape, position, orientation (the information on a hard disk is the physical orientation of the magnetic bits) without altering weight. I'll rephrase your test slightly to illustrate this.

Question: Where did the information exist before it was “on a hard disk”? How much did it weigh? Could you smell it? Could you taste it? How much space did it occupy? Could it be spray-painted (as Ron once asked)?

Here’s a test you can do. Weigh a rock and jot down the exact weight. Then increase its surface area by cracking it in pieces. Then weigh it again. Will it be heavier because there's more surface area? If you still deny that surface area is non-physical, then you are in denial.

Either I just proved that surface area is non-physical or there's a problem in thinking that weight needs to change during a physical operation like altering a hard drive.First, you did not answer my original question. Will the computer weigh less? A rock is physical. The mathematics used to measure the surface area of the rock is not physical. Again, you are using God’s law of mathematics to argue that there is no God. Of course when you do this, you should realize that you affirm creation and deny atheism.

Without the exact quote it's not possible to tell if he was actually stating that all information comes from a intelligent source or just that DNA came from aliens.

But he did not posit that information came from matter. Right?

1. It depends on if you just want the e=mc2 equivilant of the energy traveling through the neurons or the weight of the neurons themselves or the entire brain.2. It requires the volume of the neurons needed to produce the thought.

You are assuming that which you have to prove. Thoughts are not physical. Neurons are physical. Have you or anyone ever observed a nonphysical thought produced by matter?

3. No.

Why can’t you smell a thought if it’s physical?

4 and 5. Yes, albeit at very low resolutions. We can only view general emotions and concepts via MRI. Thoughts are a sequence of neural activations. Images of different types of emotions.

If you mean experience someone else’s thoughts instead of view them, then no, the technology to do that doesn't exist. It would require both tracing every neuron and then recreating each connection in your own brain. Since the wiring in a person's brain changes to form memories it would be virtually impossible to produce the exact same chain of impulses in two different people.You can view the physical effects but not the thought itself. It’s not possible to view that which is not physical.

5. No

Can it be tasted? If not, why not?

Matter, energy and all the physical characteristics and processes associated with them are what exists according to my argument, not just matter.

Of course! I should have included energy. But me thinks “physical characteristics” for you means justifying the preconditions of intelligibility such as laws of logic, rational thought, reliability of senses, uniformity in nature, morality. A reasonless piece of matter can’t give you any of these things, because it can’t give you what it does not have to give. I suggest you read C. S. Lewis’ book “Miracles.” In the second chapter, he presents to the atheist “The Cardinal Difficulty for Naturalism.” It is a difficulty that just can't be answered.

A single atom/molecule/chemical, no. A bunch of them arranged into a brain, yes.

Part II.

How do you KNOW that this is true? You could arrange atoms, molecules, chemicals for the next gazillion years and they would not give you the ability to reason or know truth. Could you arrange these chemicals outside a human and get rational thought? No!

Physics and chemistry.

Will physics and chemistry enable you to KNOW TRUTH?

I was trying to show you that two opposing opinions doesn't mean that the opinions are talking about the same thing in the same way. I can easily justify morality based on experiences that everyone or nearly everyone shares. It's simply that these moral rules can be presented with situations where it would be acceptable to break them.

“Wouldn’t be acceptable to break them.” Says who? Opposing opinions do not determine truth. Truth is absolute by definition. Now you are attempting to make truth relative. I submit that you can’t live in a relativistic worldview. And all relative arguments are self-refuting. I recall many, many years ago where relativists tried to apply Einstein’s Theory of Relativity to the immaterial world of logic, truth, morality, etc. It was Einstein who refuted them with (as I recall): Laws of science will tell you what is; moral laws will tell you what should be.

If it was just you and me then yes it would be. If there are other people who might want to find out who or what killed me and take steps to prevent it from happening to them then no, it might not be very beneficial to you.

A behavior that is beneficial is not necessarily morally right. Absent a higher Moral Authority, you can’t justify morality or any kind. In your worldview, you can’t justify any of the reality that you encounter in life, whether it is morality, laws of logic, rational thought, uniformity in nature. Your worldview is a random chance world composed of energy and matter.

Logic still applies. I'm not arguing that absolute morality is impossible because other people disagree. I'm arguing that absolute morality is impossible because it's logically impossible for there to be more than one absolute moral rule.

Absolute morality is an impossibility absent God who is the Moral Authority above man. Otherwise, morality becomes subjective and each man is his own moral authority. God told Israel: “There was no king in Israel and everyone was doing what was right in his own eyes.”

There are two claims:
Claim 1. The morality of an action is based on goals and circumstances rather than god. Common moral rules are based on common goals and circumstances rather than god. There is no logical requirement to accept the moral rules of someone you disagree with. Disagreements can be settled by debate, compromise, conflict, etc.

So, if I’m stronger than you, you must accept my morality? You can’t live in that atheist worldview (or should I say atheistic nightmare) you’ve created for yourself. Besides, your approach has already been tried by God. From Cain to Noah, God allowed man to live governed only by his conscience with no punishments. Theologians call this God’s Dispensation of Conscience. The result: “Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the Lord said, ‘I will destroy man whom I have created…’” (Gen. 6:5-7). God flooded the earth and spared Noah and his family. When Noah got off the Ark, God gave the Dispensation of Law (Gen. 9:6). From Paul to the present, we are under the Dispensation of Grace.

Paul writes a very intriguing passage: “… let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: ‘that You [God] may be justified in Your words, and may overcome when You are judged [quoting Ps. 51:4]’” (Rom. 3:4). When first I read this, I immediately asked myself, “Who will have the audacity to judge God?” Answer: It will be atheists at the Great White Throne judgment who will protest: “God, if only you had listened to Miles and let us live governed only by our conscience.” “God, if only you had not given us Your oppressive law.” “God, if only You had cut us some slack with a little grace.” But they will be “without excuse.”

Claim 2. Absolute morality is logically impossible if there is more than one absolute moral rule. Two moral rules can be placed in conflict with one another where a person must choose between violating one or the other. Therefore, one must not be absolute for the same reason that an irresistible force cannot exist in the same universe as an immovable object. When the force was applied to the object either the force would be resistible or the object would be movable. Two different absolute rules can oppose each other (example: don't kill babies vs. don't disobey god) which means if god commanded the killing of babies one of those rules must not be absolute.

Notice here you are using a science argument. Science will tell you what IS but not what ought to be. There is no black and white with God’s moral law unless you want to be foolish. God says you shall not murder the innocent. But then He tells us that we have the right to justifiable homicide to protect ourselves or an innocent third party. He tells us not to lie when the lie will hurt a friend, but He expects us to be rational enough to know that we can lie to a rapist that there are no women in the house. Only an atheist who hates God would deny these simple truths.

Murder implies wrongness by definition. If you want examples where its considered acceptable to kill the innocent then here's several.

But in your worldview, there is no right or wrong. Right?

The classic example is killing a crying baby to prevent a group of fugitives from being discovered.
Killing to end someones unbearable pain such as a battlefield coup de grace or assisted suicide.
Castaways killing and eating a dying member or the one who drew the shortest straw.
Tossing someone out of a overloaded lifeboat into lethally cold water to keep the boat from sinking.
In war there are always innocents being killed where those deaths are considered acceptable collateral damage.

Not one of these scenarios is permitted by God. And you do not have authority to proclaim them absolutely moral or immoral—not in your worldview. And in your worldview, what would be wrong with the fugitives being killed? Why worry about how much a dying person is suffering? What would be wrong with all the people sinking in the boat? You just have to keep borrowing from the Christian worldview. Please stay in your worldview--if you can?

From a pro-life Christian perspective there's the case where god commanded the death of infants or killed them himself in the flood. (I'm assuming that a pro-lifer considers babies to be innocents and a d Christian considers god killing babies to be morally correct)

You can’t claim that there is no absolute morality and then accuse God of any behavior you find objectionable.

For the example as written I'd say no. I'd favor personal autonomy over eventual extinction. I'm sure there would be people who disagreed and favored continuation of the human race over involuntary pregnancy. The difference in opinions would be debated, maybe bribes would be offered, possibly violence would erupt. Ultimately the winning opinion would determine the course of action.

But you can’t say that either outcome would be moral or immoral. Right? In your worldview, you can’t justify anything.

I've never heard a Christian claim that god is capable of lying. There are several passages in the bible claiming that god doesn't or can't lie. If those are incorrect does that mean you consider the bible mistaken?

God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent.
[I]n hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began.

The Pharoah commanded the midwives to kill the Jewish male children. The midwives lied to Pharaoh rather than murder the innocent babies. Only and atheist materialist would question God’s actions here.

I will answer your post when I get a little more time. In the mean time, concerning your question about does God know the future: Please look at some of the threads on this site, and you will get an idea of what the pro-predestinationers believe. And you can Google Calvinism and read their Five Point theology (Tulip petal). Not all Calvinist are Five Pointers; some are two, three, etc. Then if you have specific questions, I can answer them for you. Also Google Calvinism's kissin' cousin Armenianism.

I would disagree. I do not have a pasifist worldview. I have a Christian worldview. "if My kingdom were of this world then would my servants fight." Many of Christ's followers were upset because christ did not overthrow Rom _He could have called ten thousand angels...". If you wish start a thread.I am game. Anyway ours is a volunteer army and there are plenty of people that volunteer. they do not need our Christian raised children.
All the best
Miike
[/quote]
[quote name='Mike Summers' timestamp='1346340471' post='85575']

I would disagree. I do not have a pasifist worldview. I have a Christian worldview. "if My kingdom were of this world then would my servants fight." Many of Christ's followers were upset because christ did not overthrow Rom _He could have called ten thousand angels...". If you wish start a thread.I am game. Anyway ours is a volunteer army and there are plenty of people that volunteer. they do not need our Christian raised children.
All the best
Miike
[/quote]

Mike, I will be glad to dialogue with you on this. As I am not sure exactly what your worldview is on this subject, I will leave it to you to open a thread. You can lay out exactly what you believe, and then we would not be kicking over strawhorses.

Thanks for taking the time to write this reply, Teejay.I have some questions in response to your answers. I'll try to keep my comments concise.

1.If we're working under your explanation of omniscience and omnipotence, then you can scratch those off from my reasons.But why do you think that some Christians claim that god can do anything and knows everything? Are there verses in the bible that allude to god as being all-knowing or capable of anything? Are there verses that might be interpreted by some to mean this? If so, can you point them out? I'd be interested in knowing why different people make different claims about this.(Note: I still have objections with respect to describing god as benevolent -- even if I use the definition(s) you provide.)Drwho,

First, before you describe God in any manner, you must first admit that He exists. But, there are people who describe Jesus Christ (a perfect reflection of the Father) as kind, giving, loving, and the list goes on. And at times I am accused of not being “Christ-like.” Most people, Christians included, have never read the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) thoroughly. To the hard hearted, Jesus was anything but loving and nice. A thorough reading will reveal a Jesus who warned, “Bring those enemies of mine, who did not want Me to reign over them, and slay them before Me” (Luke 19:33). He was the “Rock of offence” and He did not much care if the hard hearted were offended. When His disciples ran after Him to inform Him that the Pharisees were offended, He replied: “Leave them alone. They are the blind leading the blind and both shall stumble and fall in the ditch.” He rebuked His head apostle Peter by calling him Satan. His parables were like turned road signs to those who did not have “ears to hear or eyes to see.” But to those who were humble and asked Him to interpret their meaning, He was quick to teach. Read Matthew 23 where Jesus rebukes the Pharisees and scribes. His rebuke makes a Marine Corps drill sergeant look like Barney Fife. When asked by the hard hearted Pharisees, “By what authority do you do these things, He refused to answer them—even though implicit in His answer was salvation. When His apostles saw Him walking towards them on water, they did not believe it was Him, even after all the miracles they saw Him do. The Bible says that He would have walked on by them (because of their unbelief) had they not called out to Him. He physically ran the money changers out of the temple, and anyone who has traveled in foreign countries know that there ain’t nobody messes with the money changers (tough guys). There are so many erroneous descriptions of the real Jesus that many unbelievers never meet the real Jesus. For example, how often have you heard Christians say that we have to forgive everyone who sins against you. But Jesus never taught that. Rather, He taught: “If your brother sins against you, REBUKE him, and if he repents and asks your forgiveness, then forgive him” (Luke 17:3). So I like to present the real Jesus so that atheist can reject the real Jesus and not the Casper Milktoast Jesus falsely presented.

Concerning predestination, this argument has been ongoing for centuries. This false belief entered Christianity when Augustine became a priest. Augustine was too smart for his own good and was a student of pagan Greek philosophy and Aristotle and Plato. When he read the Bible, it did not mesh with Greek philosophy. So Augustine’s mother brought her bishop (Ambrose) to persuade Augustine to become a priest. Ambrose was also a Greek philosophy buff and he taught Augustine that the Bible could be interpreted through the lens of Greek philosophy—hence Greek fatalism or all is predestined. Augustine became a priest and the most influential theologian since Paul. Augustine’s influence was so strong that Martin Luther may have broke with Rome, but he stayed with Augustine. Then came Calvin, and he took predestination to a new level. In the early days of America, when young aspiring clergy attended Harvard and Yale, Greek philosophy courses were mandatory. Augustine eventually credited God for his own sins and even his bad teeth. Are there passages that show that God knows everything and that He damns who He wills? Yes. But these passages must be interpreted so in isolation. If interpreted through the nature of God as presented in the big picture of the Bible, they do not hold up. For example, a few I can think of off hand: “You knew me before I was in my mother’s womb.” But the actual says, “You knew me when I was yet unformed.” Since DNA code has been cracked, God can look into the womb, IF HE WANTS TO, and read the code and know the baby. After all, He wrote it. Another is, “God knows the end from the beginning.” But the actual verse says, “God proclaims the end from the beginning” meaning that He will triumph over His enemies.

2.I've read enough of it to convince me that it has many factual inaccuracies. In addition, after years of speaking with Christians on this issue, I still cannot say that I have a reason to regard its claims regarding god as being true.The consequence of being wrong about this, as you've pointed out, is worse than anything imaginable. Clearly, my lack of concern for this scenario unfolding should give some indication regarding the level of confidence I have about my position as a non-believer. Therefore, I would need to be convinced that there is at least a possibility of the bible being true in order to invest enough time to read it in its entirety. Although, I appreciate your concern for my well-being after death and I appreciate your advice.

I would like to first argue for the existence of God. If God does not exist, then there can be no word of God. But God exists because of the impossibility of any alternative. And before I get into this further, I must ask you:

As an atheist, do you believe that anything exists besides matter and energy? Or, are you an atheist/materialist?

3I'm not sure how to respond to your response to my response to question #3 -- I don't believe in Mormonism either.

My response to you was not necessarily for or against Mormonism. It was an argument showing the historicity of the Bible. The Bible has been labeled the Premier History Book of the world by many great historians. There isn’t a year goes by lately that some dig reveals a city or a person mentioned in the Bible. But again, I want to focus on the existence of God.

4.That's why I didn't and said that "I don't know."

But do you want to know? Pilate asked Jesus, “What is truth?” But he really did not want an answer from the Truth that was standing before him.

And while we are on this subject, another question:

Do you believe truth exists?

5.In order to not be accused of contorting the truth, I won't start off by listing off my issues with what you have said. Instead, I'd like to ask you some questions regarding #5 to get a better understanding of what you're saying.First, can you direct me to where you're getting your information regarding what the first and second laws of thermodynamics state? I remember them being different when I learned about them in school.

Thanks again.

Please forgive me, Drwho. I prematurely judged how you would answer.

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can’t be created or destroyed. Einstein posited, and was proved right, that energy can be produced from matter (burn oil or coal) and that matter can be produced from energy. And scientist have actually produced a few useless particles of matter from energy but, as I recall reading, they dimmed the lights in a city doing so. So you need matter to produce energy and energy to produce matter—like the chicken and the egg.

The First Law says, basically, that no new matter or energy is being produced. What’s here is here because God rested from all His creation on the seventh day. Scientist have never see a violation of this first law. My simple definition is that a rock can’t create itself from nothing and neither can man. Only God can create all this from nothing.

The Second Law is the killer—a stake in the heart of atheism. When matter is used to make energy, some of the energy is lost never to be used again. So the useable energy available is ever decreasing. Some scientists like to call this Times Arrow (which points down). Eventually, this universe will suffer a heat death (as scientists call it?).

I am typing this from a paper by a scientist from NASA. I can’t for the life of me find it now. But you can Google this subject and read it for yourself.

So, absent God, atheists have an unsolvable dilemma. The universe could not have created itself from nothing (First Law) and it could not have always been here (Second Law). So if it could not have created itself and it could not have always been here, then the atheist must come up with an alternative to a Creator God.

Thanks for taking the time to write this reply, Teejay.I have some questions in response to your answers. I'll try to keep my comments concise.

1.If we're working under your explanation of omniscience and omnipotence, then you can scratch those off from my reasons.But why do you think that some Christians claim that god can do anything and knows everything? Are there verses in the bible that allude to god as being all-knowing or capable of anything? Are there verses that might be interpreted by some to mean this? If so, can you point them out? I'd be interested in knowing why different people make different claims about this.(Note: I still have objections with respect to describing god as benevolent -- even if I use the definition(s) you provide.)Drwho,

First, before you describe God in any manner, you must first admit that He exists. But, there are people who describe Jesus Christ (a perfect reflection of the Father) as kind, giving, loving, and the list goes on. And at times I am accused of not being “Christ-like.” Most people, Christians included, have never read the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) thoroughly. To the hard hearted, Jesus was anything but loving and nice. A thorough reading will reveal a Jesus who warned, “Bring those enemies of mine, who did not want Me to reign over them, and slay them before Me” (Luke 19:33). He was the “Rock of offence” and He did not much care if the hard hearted were offended. When His disciples ran after Him to inform Him that the Pharisees were offended, He replied: “Leave them alone. They are the blind leading the blind and both shall stumble and fall in the ditch.” He rebuked His head apostle Peter by calling him Satan. His parables were like turned road signs to those who did not have “ears to hear or eyes to see.” But to those who were humble and asked Him to interpret their meaning, He was quick to teach. Read Matthew 23 where Jesus rebukes the Pharisees and scribes. His rebuke makes a Marine Corps drill sergeant look like Barney Fife. When asked by the hard hearted Pharisees, “By what authority do you do these things, He refused to answer them—even though implicit in His answer was salvation. When His apostles saw Him walking towards them on water, they did not believe it was Him, even after all the miracles they saw Him do. The Bible says that He would have walked on by them (because of their unbelief) had they not called out to Him. He physically ran the money changers out of the temple, and anyone who has traveled in foreign countries know that there ain’t nobody messes with the money changers (tough guys). There are so many erroneous descriptions of the real Jesus that many unbelievers never meet the real Jesus. For example, how often have you heard Christians say that we have to forgive everyone who sins against you. But Jesus never taught that. Rather, He taught: “If your brother sins against you, REBUKE him, and if he repents and asks your forgiveness, then forgive him” (Luke 17:3). So I like to present the real Jesus so that atheist can reject the real Jesus and not the Casper Milktoast Jesus falsely presented.

Concerning predestination, this argument has been ongoing for centuries. This false belief entered Christianity when Augustine became a priest. Augustine was too smart for his own good and was a student of pagan Greek philosophy and Aristotle and Plato. When he read the Bible, it did not mesh with Greek philosophy. So Augustine’s mother brought her bishop (Ambrose) to persuade Augustine to become a priest. Ambrose was also a Greek philosophy buff and he taught Augustine that the Bible could be interpreted through the lens of Greek philosophy—hence Greek fatalism or all is predestined. Augustine became a priest and the most influential theologian since Paul. Augustine’s influence was so strong that Martin Luther may have broke with Rome, but he stayed with Augustine. Then came Calvin, and he took predestination to a new level. In the early days of America, when young aspiring clergy attended Harvard and Yale, Greek philosophy courses were mandatory. Augustine eventually credited God for his own sins and even his bad teeth. Are there passages that show that God knows everything and that He damns who He wills? Yes. But these passages must be interpreted so in isolation. If interpreted through the nature of God as presented in the big picture of the Bible, they do not hold up. For example, a few I can think of off hand: “You knew me before I was in my mother’s womb.” But the actual says, “You knew me when I was yet unformed.” Since DNA code has been cracked, God can look into the womb, IF HE WANTS TO, and read the code and know the baby. After all, He wrote it. Another is, “God knows the end from the beginning.” But the actual verse says, “God proclaims the end from the beginning” meaning that He will triumph over His enemies.

2.I've read enough of it to convince me that it has many factual inaccuracies. In addition, after years of speaking with Christians on this issue, I still cannot say that I have a reason to regard its claims regarding god as being true.The consequence of being wrong about this, as you've pointed out, is worse than anything imaginable. Clearly, my lack of concern for this scenario unfolding should give some indication regarding the level of confidence I have about my position as a non-believer. Therefore, I would need to be convinced that there is at least a possibility of the bible being true in order to invest enough time to read it in its entirety. Although, I appreciate your concern for my well-being after death and I appreciate your advice.

I would like to first argue for the existence of God. If God does not exist, then there can be no word of God. But God exists because of the impossibility of any alternative. And before I get into this further, I must ask you:

As an atheist, do you believe that anything exists besides matter and energy? Or, are you an atheist/materialist?

3I'm not sure how to respond to your response to my response to question #3 -- I don't believe in Mormonism either.

My response to you was not necessarily for or against Mormonism. It was an argument showing the historicity of the Bible. The Bible has been labeled the Premier History Book of the world by many great historians. There isn’t a year goes by lately that some dig reveals a city or a person mentioned in the Bible. But again, I want to focus on the existence of God.

4.That's why I didn't and said that "I don't know."

But do you want to know? Pilate asked Jesus, “What is truth?” But he really did not want an answer from the Truth that was standing before him.

And while we are on this subject, another question:

Do you believe truth exists?

5.In order to not be accused of contorting the truth, I won't start off by listing off my issues with what you have said. Instead, I'd like to ask you some questions regarding #5 to get a better understanding of what you're saying.First, can you direct me to where you're getting your information regarding what the first and second laws of thermodynamics state? I remember them being different when I learned about them in school.

Thanks again.

Please forgive me, Drwho. I prematurely judged how you would answer.

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can’t be created or destroyed. Einstein posited, and was proved right, that energy can be produced from matter (burn oil or coal) and that matter can be produced from energy. And scientist have actually produced a few useless particles of matter from energy but, as I recall reading, they dimmed the lights in a city doing so. So you need matter to produce energy and energy to produce matter—like the chicken and the egg.

The First Law says, basically, that no new matter or energy is being produced. What’s here is here because God rested from all His creation on the seventh day. Scientist have never see a violation of this first law. My simple definition is that a rock can’t create itself from nothing and neither can man. Only God can create all this from nothing.

The Second Law is the killer—a stake in the heart of atheism. When matter is used to make energy, some of the energy is lost never to be used again. So the useable energy available is ever decreasing. Some scientists like to call this Times Arrow (which points down). Eventually, this universe will suffer a heat death (as scientists call it?).

I am typing this from a paper by a scientist from NASA. I can’t for the life of me find it now. But you can Google this subject and read it for yourself.

So, absent God, atheists have an unsolvable dilemma. The universe could not have created itself from nothing (First Law) and it could not have always been here (Second Law). So if it could not have created itself and it could not have always been here, then the atheist must come up with an alternative to a Creator God.

Hi TeeJay,With respect to my comment regarding the benevolence of god, I was mostly referring to his depiction in the old testament. Much of this is incompatible with my concept of morality and ethics and my understanding of how modern society perceives morality and ethics.

As an atheist, do you believe that anything exists besides matter and energy? Or, are you an atheist/materialist?

With respect to the observable universe, it certainly appears to me that everything that exists is borne of naturalistic causes (matter, electromagnetic radiation, the fabric of spacetime, etc.).What's more, I am inclined to believe that the universe and anything that may (or may not) exist outside its purview (i.e. multiverse, etc. ?) exists in some configuration that is entirely natural rather than by the actions of a sentient deity. Although, I don't think that anyone can begin to speculate on the existence of things beyond what is quantifiable or mathematically derivable. The laws of nature may be completely different in environments that are foreign to us.

It was an argument showing the historicity of the Bible

I'm sorry then, I may not have been clear. I'm not objecting to the claim that there are things in the bible that may be true. I'm saying that I think that many of the things in there are not. I understand that it was written relatively near to the time period that it was referencing. Therefore, I understand that it should not be uncommon for there to be references to people or places that may have existed at that time.

Do you believe truth exists?

Yes.

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can’t be created or destroyed. Einstein posited, and was proved right, that energy can be produced from matter (burn oil or coal) and that matter can be produced from energy. And scientist have actually produced a few useless particles of matter from energy but, as I recall reading, they dimmed the lights in a city doing so. So you need matter to produce energy and energy to produce matter—like the chicken and the egg.

The First Law says, basically, that no new matter or energy is being produced. What’s here is here because God rested from all His creation on the seventh day. Scientist have never see a violation of this first law. My simple definition is that a rock can’t create itself from nothing and neither can man. Only God can create all this from nothing.

I'm really confused on a couple things here:1.Isn't the first law to do with the conservation of energy? I noticed that you specifically said no new energy is produced. Why does there need to be some input of energy in order for the existing energy state of a system to be conserved?

2. more importantly, I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning on this part: "...because God" How did you get to that explanation? Correct me if I'm wrong, but It kind of looks like you're attempting to derive this explanation by excluding other explanations rather than by using supporting evidence to arrive at your conclusion that god is the explanation. Specifically, you're excluding the notion that energy spontaneously pops into existence. So I guess my question is, how are you excluding every other potential explanation that you haven't thought of yet?

3. Also, what about quantum fluctuations? How do they fit into all this?

The Second Law is the killer—a stake in the heart of atheism. When matter is used to make energy, some of the energy is lost never to be used again. So the useable energy available is ever decreasing. Some scientists like to call this Times Arrow (which points down). Eventually, this universe will suffer a heat death (as scientists call it?).

I am typing this from a paper by a scientist from NASA. I can’t for the life of me find it now. But you can Google this subject and read it for yourself.

A tendency towards increased entropy. Okay, I understand you now.

But how does an eternal universe/multiverse violate the second law of thermodynamics?Also, isn't the principle based on probability? Dosn't that mean that in some instances (rarely) entropy decreases sometimes?

Hi TeeJay,With respect to my comment regarding the benevolence of god, I was mostly referring to his depiction in the old testament. Much of this is incompatible with my concept of morality and ethics and my understanding of how modern society perceives morality and ethics.

I am curious what you mean, specifically, how does "modern society" percieve morality and ethics? I would say that there are multiple ways that people determine what is moral and what is ethical when they reject God's standard.

Hi TeeJay,With respect to my comment regarding the benevolence of god, I was mostly referring to his depiction in the old testament. Much of this is incompatible with my concept of morality and ethics and my understanding of how modern society perceives morality and ethics.

Drwho,

I will let you and JS dialogue on this. I want to stay on point—the point being that the existence of a theistic God is the foundation of Christian theology. I contend that if the God of traditional Christian theism does not exist, then logically my evangelical theology crumbles. But I can prove He exists because of the impossibility of any alternative atheism can offer.

As we progress, I will show that if the Christian God does not exist, then you nor I nor anything can exist.

With respect to the observable universe, it certainly appears to me that everything that exists is borne of naturalistic causes (matter, electromagnetic radiation, the fabric of spacetime, etc.).What's more, I am inclined to believe that the universe and anything that may (or may not) exist outside its purview (i.e. multiverse, etc. ?) exists in some configuration that is entirely natural rather than by the actions of a sentient deity. Although, I don't think that anyone can begin to speculate on the existence of things beyond what is quantifiable or mathematically derivable. The laws of nature may be completely different in environments that are foreign to us.

Drwho, with respect also, atheists have much difficulty explaining how our universe came into existence. Theorizing the existence of another universe or a “multi-verse” does not solve the atheist’s conundrum. Each time another universe is added, the conundrum presented by the First and Second Laws is still there. But thank you for your forthright, honest answer. If I’m reading you correctly, you are an atheist/materialist, i.e., in your worldview only matter and energy exist.

No scientific theory exists that explains the origin of space, time, or matter. Because each is intimately related to or defined in terms of the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the others. To date, all naturalistic explanations have failed. As an example, for matter to exist, you must first have energy. But you can’t have energy without matter.

You posited: “Although, I don't think that anyone can begin to speculate on the existence of things beyond what is quantifiable or mathematically derivable.” Here you speculated. Is your speculation and conclusion here “quantifiable or mathematically derivable”?

I'm sorry then, I may not have been clear. I'm not objecting to the claim that there are things in the bible that may be true. I'm saying that I think that many of the things in there are not. I understand that it was written relatively near to the time period that it was referencing. Therefore, I understand that it should not be uncommon for there to be references to people or places that may have existed at that time.

Again, let’s let the truthfulness of God’s word go for now. Unless you believe He exists, I would not logically expect you accept His word.

Yes.

How refreshing! I seldom get this answer from atheists. But, Drwho, I must ask you to do some self-examination. Are you ruling out the possibility of a supernatural Being existing before you start your quest for the truth? When it comes to the origin of the universe, atheists have no materialistic explanation. So instead of assuming an agent-causation (such as God), they automatically insert a gap. And they immediately argue, “What! So Goddidit?” The theistic answer of an Agent causing the universe is immediately dismissed out of hand. Atheists refuse to admit that the gap has been plugged by the theist with an adequate explanation because of their belief that since only matter exists, there has to be a materialistic explanation.If we carefully consider this reasoning, it turns out to be circular: There has to be a gap because they have no materialistic explanation. There has to be a materialistic explanation because naturalism is true. But since it’s naturalism itself which is at issue in the discussion, when atheists assume there is a gap—because they have no materialistic explanation—they are assuming that which needs to be proved.

Recently, one of our military drones crashed in Iran. The Iranians promised to “reverse engineer” it and build an exact duplicate. I pray that before they start, they imitate atheists and rule out the possibility of an aeronautical engineer having designed it.

So, before we start our quest, are you dismissing, a priori, the possibility of the existence of God?

I'm really confused on a couple things here:1.Isn't the first law to do with the conservation of energy? I noticed that you specifically said no new energy is produced. Why does there need to be some input of energy in order for the existing energy state of a system to be conserved?

The First Law states that the total energy in the universe, or in any isolated part of it, remains constant. It further states that although energy (or its mass equivalent) can change form, it is not now being created (brought into existence out of nothing) or destroyed (taken out of existence). Countless experiments have verified this. A corollary of the First Law is that natural processes can’t create (bring into existence from nothing) new energy. Consequently, energy must have been created (brought into existence from nothing) in the past by some Agency or Power or Being outside and independent of the natural universe. Furthermore, this Agency, Power, or Being had to have always existed prior to the universe.

2. more importantly, I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning on this part: "...because God" How did you get to that explanation? Correct me if I'm wrong, but It kind of looks like you're attempting to derive this explanation by excluding other explanations rather than by using supporting evidence to arrive at your conclusion that god is the explanation.

Drwho, I have a Christian theist’s worldview. I will define a worldview: a set of presuppositions we use to interpret the reality we encounter. Everyone has a worldview, but not all worldviews are logical. The Foundation for my worldview is God and His word (special revelation). As we proceed, we will see whose worldview correctly explains and justifies what we encounter in reality—yours or mine.

Yes, not surprisingly, I refer to Genesis: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). I’m presenting to you a scientific argument using the First and Second Laws—two of the most tested and proven laws of science we have yet discovered. Using these laws, I am showing you that what we encounter in reality comports with what God says in Genesis: “And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done” (Gen. 2:2). No new matter or energy is coming into existence. Does this not comport with what God says in His word?

“Correct me if I'm wrong, but It kind of looks like you're attempting to derive an explanation by excluding other explanations rather than by using supporting evidence to arrive at your conclusion that god is NOT the explanation.”

Specifically, you're excluding the notion that energy spontaneously pops into existence. So I guess my question is, how are you excluding every other potential explanation that you haven't thought of yet?

Drwho, I am going to allow you to retract your argument that nothing can produce something. And I will imitate Jesus and answer your question with a question: Why are you excluding God in lieu of nothing producing something?

3. Also, what about quantum fluctuations? How do they fit into all this?

I want to clear up first your conundrum of the first and second laws.

The universe could not have created itself from nothing (First Law). Will you admit to this simple truth?

The universe could not have always been here (Second Law). Will you agree to this simple truth?

If the universe could not have created itself from nothing and it could not have always been here, then, by necessity, it had to have been created (brought into existence) by a Being or Power that is prior to and outside of the universe. If you disagree with this logical argument, please present an alternative explanation of how the universe came to be?